How Does Energy Transfer Work in Pendulums?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BMZoobie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
Energy transfer in pendulums involves the conversion between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. When a pendulum bob is raised, it gains potential energy equal to mgh, which is fully converted to kinetic energy at the lowest point of its swing. The energy required to raise the bob is not greater than the energy observed in its oscillations; rather, they are equal in an ideal system without friction. Gravity acts as a store of energy, not a source, meaning it cannot provide additional energy beyond what is initially input. Thus, any claims of gravity-powered machines are fundamentally flawed.
BMZoobie
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I'm new to this sight/forum so I apologies in advance if I've got the wrong platform or have made any other faux par.

This is probably very elementary to most on this forum; can someone please tell me and hopefully explain a few things around transfer of energy in pendulums. Here is what I am pondering...

Is the energy required to raise a pendulum bob to its point of maximum potential energy more, less or equal to the energy then seen in the movement of the bob back and forth through the resulting oscillations? - I realize that the exact measurements of this depends on the design of the pendulum and assumes a relatively low level of friction but I'm more or less just referring to a string with a spherical weight suspended one one end and fixed to a fulcrum point at the other.

From my limited understanding of this matter I would think that the sum of the energy (mass X gravity X height) needed to send the bob flying past its point of equilibrium a number of times is collectively greater than the initial energy requirement to raise the bob from equilibrium to its point of maximum potential energy, this extra energy being drawn from Earth's gravity.

Can someone please confirm if my understanding is correct of if not explain why and what is actually happening?

Thanks,

Abz
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BMZoobie said:
From my limited understanding of this matter I would think that the sum of the energy (mass X gravity X height) needed to send the bob flying past its point of equilibrium a number of times is collectively greater than the initial energy requirement to raise the bob from equilibrium to its point of maximum potential energy, this extra energy being drawn from Earth's gravity.
The energy needed to raise the mass from the lowest point to a height h equals mgh. At the highest point, all the energy is gravitational potential. As it falls, that energy is transformed into kinetic energy. The total energy, ignoring friction and other losses, is conserved as the pendulum swings back and forth.
 
  • Like
Likes CWatters
BMZoobie said:
needed to send the bob flying past its point of equilibrium
Its kinetic energy at the equilibrium position will, ideally, be exactly the same as the potential energy at the greatest displacement. The term "flying" seems to imply that it would be more? It couldn't be, without a supply of extra energy.
No different ideas here than in @Doc Al 's post - just put a different way.
 
  • Like
Likes CWatters
Gravity can never be a "source" of energy. It's only ever a store of energy. A hydro electric dam stores energy but the source is the sun as it's the sun that provides the energy to raise the water/rain.

Anyone claiming they have made a gravity powered machine is mistaken.
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top